No, Romney's numbers continued to grow after the VP debate, and pundits from both sides mentioned how Biden's rude style was a turn-off to moderates searching for meat and potatoes answers to important questions.

If nutbar Romney wins, well, American voters will only have themselves to blame.

And exactly why is Romeny a "nutbar"?

What in his last 4 years as president makes you think this? Oh... wait.. Romney HASN'T been president for 4 years, and HAS no record as president that you can use to make the accusation.

Interestingly, he HAS a record of working with Democrats to pass ... get this... healthcare legislation! Obama, contrary to all of his promises (lies), ran to a smoke-filled room with other Democrats to write and ram through a nationally unpopular healthcare bill.

Don't you remember Obama promising to post legislation on the internet for people to see and discuss before passage?

Quite frankly, the man gives nice teleprompter speeches, and can hold Hollywood fundraisers, but sucks at about anything else (other than filling liberals with the bull that they want to hear so that he can get elected).

And Romney is a "nutbar?"

Oh, he's just another Bush, you say? Is that why you're calling him a "nutbar?" How so? Please enlighten us as to the history you can draw from to claim he's just like Bush?

Obama has spent 4 years spending over 6 trillion (more than Bush did in 8 with 2 wars -- sorry, even the bailout doesn't account for most of it), not passing a budget in 3 years of his 4, has fulfilled very few of his original campaign promises, and cannot even provide us with a plan of what he's going to do for the next 4 years. Instead, he resorts to making jokes about "binders full of women" and the like. I find it laughable that liberals are at all concerned about a military budget while they have no concern for the fact that Obama has not passed any budget AT ALL in 3 years.

Obama has no business experience, has no business being president, is unable to make the decisions necessary to run the country, does not own-up to his massive foreign policy mistakes, and is, quite frankly, an arrogant self-loving ass high on his own failed ideas.

But you're calling Romney a nutbar??

Last edited by Swampfox10mm on Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

No, Romney's numbers continued to grow after the VP debate, and pundits from both sides mentioned how Biden's rude style was a turn-off to moderates searching for meat and potatoes answers to important questions.

If nutbar Romney wins, well, American voters will only have themselves to blame.

True, and if Obama wins and adds another 4 trillion dollars to the national debt, American voters will have only themselves to blame. Having only two viable candidates from the same two parties every election kinda makes a mockery of democracy.

And this is the biggest issue I have with the American election system. There are a total of 4 people running for president, and yet, we only hear about the two. Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in 47 states. The last I heard, Jill Stein was going to be on 85% of the ballots and I believe statistically she could win with that. The system is rigged.

"Essentially, Republicans looked around when Obama was sworn in and saw political opportunity. They had lost the White House and faced steep Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. In a way, this made them weak; they had no power to advance their own agenda. But it also gave them strength; they had considerable power to stall Obama’s agenda, and with economic anxiety rampant, it seemed logical to assume voters would blame the ruling party if things didn’t turn around quickly.

"The result is that Republicans devoted themselves not to constructively criticizing Democratic proposals, crafting feasible alternatives, and accepting olive branches from the administration but instead to cranking up the hysteria and treating virtually every Obama initiative as a step toward socialism. They matched this with legislative obstruction, tying up scores of nominations, forcing a record number of filibusters, and forcing Democrats to pass their agenda on party-line votes....

"And while they did rally around Paul Ryan’s long-term budget blueprint, Republicans have had nothing to say on the country’s immediate jobs crisis, offering only tired rhetoric about high taxes and wasteful government. And, as Jonathan Bernstein points out, they’ve offered nothing substantive on foreign policy, settling instead for fake scandals and symbolism.

That's been the strategy of the Republican party for the last four years: sabotage Obama's attempts to accomplish anything constructive because Obama will get the credit and that won't be good for the party during election years.

Interestingly, he HAS a record of working with Democrats to pass ... get this... healthcare legislation! Obama, contrary to all of his promises (lies), ran to a smoke-filled room with other Democrats to write and ram through a nationally unpopular healthcare bill.

Do you mean working with Democrats for just the healthcare bill or in general? As you can see, he was responsible for having such a heavily democratic legislature.

Quote:

In Mitt Romney's 4 years of political experience, he signed 844 vetoes. He was perhaps the most vetoing governor in Massachusetts history. He claimed in the debate with Obama that he was good at working with the opposition party which controlled 87% of the legislature. In reality he was an obstructionist, the embodiment of "No". Because the legislature 707 times overrode his vetoes, he was an ineffectual governor. He suffered a great defeat in the midterm elections. Having spent 3 million to defeat Democratic legislators, his campaign increased Democratic legislators. Of his 844 vetoes, 707 were overridden. "The Boston Globe reported that in 100 instances Democrats did not challenge Romney and his vetoes stood. In cases when the Senate challenged him, Romney was overridden every time. When the House challenged him, Romney was overridden more than 99 percent of time, the Globe reported, based on statistics from the House minority leader’s office."

I'm generally curious about what this point has to do with anything? Seriously, I would really like someone to try and explain this point to me. I thought businesses were all about the bottom dollar, and maximizing profits? How is that experience helpful when you need to create policies that are supposed to be in the best interest of the people you govern? I personally give more weight to his time as governor as being the biggest asset for the presidency.

I'm generally curious about what this point has to do with anything? Seriously, I would really like someone to try and explain this point to me. I thought businesses were all about the bottom dollar, and maximizing profits?

How many businesses would survive without a budget for 3 years?

How many businesses would survive spending so much without taking anything in?

We're in a situation where we are 16 TRILLION dollars in debt. We're truly heading toward Greece. Tough decisions need to be made. Instead of talking about that, we're talking about binders full of women.

Obama is a spender. He doesn't know how to work with people who disagree to even pass a budget (he has not passed one in three years).

Romney knows what it takes to handle the money, and that is what needs to be done.

How can you honestly sit there and wonder whether or not business experience makes a difference when our economy is where it is now??

Last edited by Swampfox10mm on Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

I'm generally curious about what this point has to do with anything? Seriously, I would really like someone to try and explain this point to me. I thought businesses were all about the bottom dollar, and maximizing profits?

How many businesses would survive without a budget for 3 years?

How many businesses would survive spending so much without taking anything in?

We're in a situation where we are 16 TRILLION dollars in debt. We're truly heading toward Greece. Tough decisions need to be made. Instead of talking about that, we're talking about binders full of women.

Obama is a spender. He doesn't know how to work with people who disagree to even pass a budget (he has passed one in three years).

Romney knows what it takes to handle the money, and that is what needs to be done.

This is the best line by far, yes he does, "Get it from Washington"-Mitt Romney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yR_Mn4Skt4
For a man who seems so hell bent on cutting money from the government, he sure knows how to get a lot of it from the government. I guess if it's there though, why not take advantage to help you get what you want?

Well that makes sense. But I can't help but look at the numbers for the past few years and see that perhaps Obama is on the right track.

Quote:

Here's the news: The U.S. Treasury reported last Friday that the deficit for fiscal 2012 was $1.09 trillion. This was $200 billion or so less than the $1.3 trillion deficit recorded in 2011 and more than $300 billion less than the $1.42 trillion deficit in 2009.

Mitt's entire debate strategy: What he just said, but from a white guy.

Obama's debate strategy was to attack Mitt and paint him as a war monger.

He failed in that.

Mitt needed to look presidential. He did that.

Mitt may have looked presidential but he sounded like he couldn't talk at length on Foreign Policy without breaking into sweats.

I disagree with that, but where I feel Mitt made a mistake was that he played it too conservatively these past two debates. That is what most concerns me. I'm not feeling that he'll win the popular vote, but may still lose on the electoral vote (if pollsters are correct).

Mitt's entire debate strategy: What he just said, but from a white guy.

Obama's debate strategy was to attack Mitt and paint him as a war monger.

He failed in that.

Mitt needed to look presidential. He did that.

Mitt may have looked presidential but he sounded like he couldn't talk at length on Foreign Policy without breaking into sweats.

I disagree with that, but where I feel Mitt made a mistake was that he played it too conservatively these past two debates. That is what most concerns me. I'm not feeling that he'll win the popular vote, but may still lose on the electoral vote (if pollsters are correct).

On some degree this is correct:

Quote:

In trying to describe the strategic importance of seeing Assad defeated, Romney stumbled in saying Syria was Iran's "route to the sea." Iran has a large southern coastline with access to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It has no land border with Syria.

Mitt's entire debate strategy: What he just said, but from a white guy.

Obama's debate strategy was to attack Mitt and paint him as a war monger.

He failed in that.

Mitt needed to look presidential. He did that.

maybe from the right wing you need a man who stands there are acts rude and condescending with a smirk across this face to come across presidential!
but frankly I would be looking for a man who was calm, collective, respectful and of viscous consistency! and that man is president Barrack Obama the leader of the democratic party.